momo3boys wrote:Thank you Theodore and knobren, This is fun, I don't always get a chance to debate anymore!

Open debate is healthy.

As far as science goes. this is a subject dear to my heart. Mostly because of my father. Creationists are scientists, and they truly do use science on a daily basis. They have faith in God, but evolutionists have faith in Evolution. Here is an example of evolutionists not telling the whole truth.

Creationists are not scientists. Supernatural explanations cannot be tested (falsified); therefore, they cannot be addressed by scientific methods.

from www.icr.org regarding human footprints, found to be 3.5 million year old according to conventional testing.

"As far as the footprints go, her data are not questioned, but the interpretation of the data illustrates the lengths to which evolutionists will go to avoid questioning man's supposedly evolutionary ancestry.

The prints themselves are quite human-like "indistinguishable from those of modem humans" (Anderson, New Scientist 98:373, 1983). Following extensive research it was concluded that the footprints "resemble those of habitually unshod modem humans.... (If the) footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus" (Tuttle, Natural History March 1990).

Because of the dates, the prints have been assigned to Australopithecus afarensis, i.e., Lucy's kind. But is this valid? Lucy was essentially a chimp. Even discoverer Donald Johansson only claims that Lucy was a chimp that walked somewhat more erect than other chimps. The Australopithecus foot was an ape's foot, with an opposing thumb, and long curved toes just right for climbing in trees, but most unlike a human's foot. According to researcher Dr. Charles Oxnard in a 1996 interview: "If you examine (Australopithecus foot bones) more closely, and especially if you examine it using the computer multivariate statistical analysis that allows you to assess parts that the eye doesn't easily see, it turns out that big toe was divergent."

Why do evolutionists continue to maintain that the chimp-like Lucy made the Laetoli human-like footprints, and that both represent our ancestors? Well, it's certainly not for scientific reasons. The drive to prove man's animal ancestry is great, for it frees one from accountability to a creator-God."

There are many proofs like this that secular science has ignored. Trees standing in layers of strata, whale fossilized in millions of years of strata, and human prints next to dinosaur prints. Why can't children in High school see the evidence of this debate.

As far as other religions being shown as well, most religions start with Genesis and God creating the world in seven days, Jewish, Muslims, Christians,,, I know theres more but I'm not a religion major. [/quote]

Why do creationists primarily argue about fossils and geology? There is a ton of evidence for common descent that are found in the biological sciences rather than just palentology or geology. Evolution is after all a topic of BIOLOGY. I'm not really familiar with what you and Theodore are saying about trees and so forth. Please send a link, so I can see what you are talking about. I don't understand the problem. I would assume that a geologist would realize what events could cause this tree thing. I just don't know anything about it.

Theodore talks about freshly laid rock that appears old. I assume that he is talking about lava flows. Some lava flows carry unmelted rock in them. These rocks would register as old because they are being carried up from deeper depths. The melted rock wouldn't appear old. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

Adult laypersons don't believe scientists when they answer creationists arguments with scientific data; how would kids be able to understand it? I sent an excerpt before that discussed how science views commen descent to be a "fact" in as much certainty as anything can be proven. Scientists argue about the mechanisms of evolution and those are the theories of evolution. These theories also are "highly-probable" based on the available evidence. Science can never prove anything with 100% certainty, but all of the available evidence supports the predictions that one would expect to see if these theories are correct. That is why evolution is not a religion. It is not based on faith. It is based on tests and observations. Creationism is not.

One thing that creationists argue about is that common descent could not be observed. Chemists can't see subatomic particles, but they have deduced their parts and functions based on tests and predicted outcomes. http://www.krysstal.com/subatomic.html

Gravity cannot be seen directly, but we can observe how it acts on apples, etc. (By the way, before the theory of gravity, I think that people thought that apples were attracted to the "earth" element of earth, fire, air, and water.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

I don't see anyone calling for teachers to show the evidence for these topics and letting children try to interpret the data to reach a conclusion!

Knobren, I also wanted to ask you if you knew that one of the number one damaging effects of abortion in psychological not physical. Many anti-abortion projects are turning into abortion counseling. I don't know of any non-religious companies doing this.

And yet, we have Theodore perpetuating the myths of increased rates of sterility and cancer in women who have had abortions. Personally, I would find it more emotionally damaging to carry a child to term and then give her/him up for adoption, never knowing what had become of her/him. People are also know to neglect or abuse kids that they didn't want or couldn't afford.

If you want to have fewer abortions, then you need to make contraception easily available and affordable and teach people how to use it. Dear Abby had a letter recently about some girl who got pregnant because she believed the myth that you can't be pregnant if you have sex in a swimming pool. Lots of kids also believe the myth that you can't get pregnant the first time or that withdrawl before -CENSORED- is sufficient protection against pregnancy. Sex ed. is essential to dispelling these myths.

As far as contradiction goes, How can someone be okay with killing an innocent child, but want to keep a criminal, murderer rapist alive? I don't think we should kill anyone. God is the judge, as I've said before. If we believe in survival of the fittest than why do we support gays and lesbians, they wouldn't survive in a natural world with out science to help them conceive, and we wouldn't help those people with debilitating genetic diseases. Just some contradictions I've seen that I can't seem to get an answer for.

Human technology has advanced faster than human evolution. People survive injuries, infections, congenital defects, etc who would not have survived in the past. I'm certainly not against that. Homosexuals have had kids in the past and continue to do so today because they often marry and procreate in order to try to fit in or they may have been forced to do so by their families and in order to produce heirs. What's the difference in helping them conceive by artificial means - they don't cause emotional harm to their deceived spouses or bring home diseases contracted from extra-marrital affairs. Are you also against aiding heterosexuals to reproduce?

As far as other religions being shown as well, most religions start with Genesis and God creating the world in seven days, Jewish, Muslims, Christians,,, I know theres more but I'm not a religion major.

As far as homosexuality,Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.

If we are going to take Leviticus law as a measure, then all law should be observed, correct?

An adulter and adultress should be put to death - 20:10
Wearing a garment of mixed fibers is wrong - 19:19
Cutting hair is wrong, as are tattoos - 19:27-28

There is also the pesky matter of kosher food.
-----------------------------------------------------
About homosexuality in general in the bible, every time it is denounced it is coupled with a true sin - prostitution, child abuse, molestation, "experimenting", rape...............in which one is not being true to oneself or gaining the consent of the other person.

However, the bible does show glimpses of homosexual relationships that were not condemned. The most apparent attempt at a hiding of such can be found in 1 Samuel 20:41. The story read in 1 Samuel is that of Jonathan and David, and the homosexual relationship cannot be missed, from the pledging of their love and Jonathan stripping naked for David, to where it says Jonathan desired David (the same word used in Genesis 34:16, where it implies sexual desire. However, different English versions will change the word to "like" "fond of" or "delighted by")
The climax (forgive the pun) comes in 20:41. Biblegateway.com will offer many translations of this last bit, and if you look at them side by side it is easy to see the original Hebrew was altered to change the story. The endings are very diverse:
wept no more
cried the loudest
David exceeded

Some even leave out that the men kissed.
The Hebrew word used was gadal, which means great, enlarged, engorged, big...and the original ending was they wept and kissed until David became great or engorged. Plainly put, he got an -CENSORED-.
---------------------------

There are other glimpses in the bible, too, such as Ruth and Naomi, where the Hebrew word used (to cleave) is the same as the word used in Genesis when a man leaves his family and cleaves unto his wife.
Or the story of two eunichs who fell in love with each other.

I simply cannot believe that homosexuality is a sin when it is between two consenting adults. It is the only "sin" that man believes in that is based on love and does not harm anyone else. However, the other sins that are often found coupled with a derision of homosexuality in the bible do hurt others. That is not okay. Jesus himself said nothing against homosexuality, and if we really want to get down to it, threw out Levitus, or Mosaic, Law when He came.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."
- M. MontessoriProud non-member of the HSLDA

Theodore wrote:The only instances in the Bible where a whole area gets destroyed is when the people are totally godless and depraved. That means that the people of Sodom were totally godless and depraved, and what they attempted to do was therefore also godless and depraved. And I don't think you can logically claim that homosexuality was ok, it was the townspeople attempting to molest angels (in disguise...) that was not - since the two items can't really be separated from one another.

Of course they can. Homosexuality is not molestation just as sex is not rape and love is not destructive obsession. The Sodom story is fairly specific about what it deals with. It does not deal with homosexual relationships. It deals with possible assault and and rape.

bobbinsx5 wrote:So again, why do read it? If it isn't perfect, isn't fact, your god isn't powerful enough to preserve his word for you, then how can he save you?

I thought I should address your question a little better. I don't believe the bible is perfect. I believe it was written by men (quite literally - a possible exception being one of the letters attributed to Paul). I believe salvation comes through acceptng Jesus Christ, not through believing God wrote the bible.

momo3boys wrote:There are many proofs like this that secular science has ignored. Trees standing in layers of strata, whale fossilized in millions of years of strata, and human prints next to dinosaur prints. Why can't children in High school see the evidence of this debate. As far as other religions being shown as well, most religions start with Genesis and God creating the world in seven days, Jewish, Muslims, Christians,,, I know theres more but I'm not a religion major.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.htmlExcerpt:
"Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology?Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now." <snip> "The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century literature refutes their presentations."

Knobren thank you for all those references. SOme were hard to read, (I'm not a scientist) But I could get some info from them anyway.

The one arguemennt I really can't agree with however, is that creationaists aren't scientists. This is from www.answersingenesis.org

"The main difference between scientists who are creationists and those who are evolutionists is their starting assumptions. Creationists and evolutionists have a different view of history, but the way they do science in the present is the same. Both creationists and evolutionists use observation and experimentation to draw conclusions about nature. This is the nature of observational science. It involves repeatable experimentation and observations in the present. Since observational scientific theories are capable of being tested in the present, creationists and evolutionists are generally in agreement on these models. They agree on the nature of gravity, the composition of stars, the speed of light in a vacuum, the size of the solar system, the principles of electricity, etc. These things can be checked and tested in the present.

But historical events cannot be checked scientifically in the present. This is because we do not have access to the past; it is gone. All that we have is the circumstantial evidence (relics) of past events. Although we can make educated guesses about the past and can make inferences from things like fossils and rocks, we cannot directly test our conclusions because we cannot repeat the past. Furthermore, since creationists and evolutionists have very different views of history, it is not surprising that they reconstruct past events very differently. We all have the same evidence; but in order to draw conclusions about what the evidence means, we use our worldviewâ€”our most basic beliefs about the nature of reality. Since they have different starting assumptions, creationists and evolutionists interpret the same evidence to mean very different things.

Ultimately, biblical creationists accept the recorded history of the Bible as their starting point. Evolutionists reject recorded history, and have effectively made up their own pseudo-history, which they use as a starting point for interpreting evidence. Both are using their beliefs about the past to interpret the evidence in the present. When we look at the scientific evidence today, we find that it is very consistent with biblical history and not as consistent with millions of years of evolution. Weâ€™ve seen in this book that the scientific evidence is consistent with biblical creation. Weâ€™ve seen that the geological evidence is consistent with a global Floodâ€”not millions of years of gradual deposition. Weâ€™ve seen that the changes in DNA are consistent with the loss of information we would expect as a result of the Curse described in Genesis 3, not the hypothetical gain of massive quantities of genetic information required by molecules-to-man evolution. Real science confirms the Bible."

WishboneDawn wrote:I thought I should address your question a little better. I don't believe the bible is perfect. I believe it was written by men (quite literally - a possible exception being one of the letters attributed to Paul). I believe salvation comes through accepting Jesus Christ, not through believing God wrote the bible.

I thoroughly agree with you about salvation, however, how can you teach your children that Jesus died for them, to believe the gospel, but the rest of the bible isn't true? Where do you draw the line? I've asked this question of someone before and no one ever answers. I'm not trying to be controversial, (on this issue ) but trying to get a real answer.

Personally I believe that while the pen may have been held by a man, that the words were inspired by God, there are too many statistics for that not to be true.

here are a couple of many sotes that prove the authorship is God. Many people, scientists and aetheists, seek out to prove that the bible is a lie, yet they find out the truth, that it is written by God. "case for Christ" is the story of one.

momo3boys wrote:I thoroughly agree with you about salvation, however, how can you teach your children that Jesus died for them, to believe the gospel, but the rest of the bible isn't true? Where do you draw the line? I've asked this question of someone before and no one ever answers. I'm not trying to be controversial, (on this issue ) but trying to get a real answer.

Not the op, but here's my take on it.

The bible is a collection of stories, poems, and letters that were selected by a committee. To take it as complete fact is in error - the subtleties of the translations change it from its original text, and as a committee decided what went in and what stayed out, it is impossible to know if the books were chosen/rewritten based on what they wanted to believe and what was in the books they left out. That, and the context of the writings has to be taken into account - what was true then is not always true now, and we may have litte to no knowledge of what the writers' lives were like, nor their sentiments at the time.

I prefer to take one thing from the bible - Matthew 7:12. To me, this sums up Jesus' teachings and the rest is just surrounding.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

knobren wrote:Creationists are not scientists. Supernatural explanations cannot be tested (falsified); therefore, they cannot be addressed by scientific methods.

The supernatural part can't be tested, but the historical and scientific accuracy can. Archeologists found the Bible so accurate that they finally gave up and started using it as a guide for locating the ruins of cities, for instance, and there is plenty of evidence for a worldwide flood if you are actually willing to look. A worldwide Flood doesn't prove Creation, but it's good evidence for the Bible not being incorrect in the parts that can be verified, and if you honestly think the Grand Canyon was carved over millions of years by a river, you don't know much about how water works, and you're totally ignoring the evidence of Mount Saint Helens, which did something similar on a smaller scale.

Also, as I've said many times before, there is no more scientific proof for macroevolution than there is for Creation. By nature, macroevolution is a process so slow that it can't be observed, reproduced, or tested, therefore all you can do is speculate. You might come up with some very creative speculations, but they aren't science. And why is it that when evolutionists change a theory it's just them following the scientific process - even when the new and improved version is so contrived and convoluted it can't possibly be right - but when Creationists do the same, it's more evidence for how Creation is bogus?

What it all boils down to is the majority of scientists dictating what the minority can and can't believe, and ignoring any evidence to the contrary - business as usual. Evolution is the modern-day equivalent to Aristotle. Scientists always believe they have a special insight into what is true and what isn't, but preconceptions (on both sides) often decide how the evidence is shaped and interpreted.

In answer to your question about trees, the basic problem is this. Certain strata correspond to certain time periods supposedly, and a few feet of rock can span hundreds of thousands or millions of years. However, fossilized trees can be found in various parts of the world standing upright through dozens of feet of these strata, effectively spanning large time periods. How can this be explained? Trees rot rather than being fossilized if they aren't completely buried quite quickly, so those trees were obviously buried in a matter of days at most. Obviously, rock layers can and have been put down quite quickly, and the whole Geologic Column goes right out the window.

Further supporting evidence was supplied by the Mount Saint Helens eruption, which carved canyons hundreds of feet deep and laid down hundreds of feet of rock in just days. If Mount Saint Helens could do that on what is (geologically speaking) quite a small scale, then a much larger flood could easily have carved the Grand Canyon and laid down much of the sedimentary rock we find today.

Regarding the Grand Canyon, the source of the river that's supposed to have carved it is small and well below the top of the canyon, and there's another major problem - the Grand Canyon is reasonably straight. Over long periods of time (even centuries, never mind millions of years), rivers tend to become more curved, since the outside of the flow erodes more of the riverbank than the inside. So if the Grand Canyon were really carved slowly, there's no way it would be as straight as it is. It's a physical impossibility.

None of this is difficult to understand.

Lily wrote:An adulter and adultress should be put to death - 20:10Wearing a garment of mixed fibers is wrong - 19:19Cutting hair is wrong, as are tattoos - 19:27-28

You are mixing up a number of different things here. Adulter and adultress being put to death is an absolute command, and to be honest, I don't have a problem with that. If you're going to ban homosexuality as a perversion, you have to be equally fair the other way.

Wearing a pure garment, like sowing only one kind of seed in your fields, was meant more as an image of how God's people were supposed to stay pure, and only applied until Jesus arrived with the message to the Gentiles. It isn't a concern today.

You weren't supposed to "round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard", because at the time, those were things that prostitutes and so on did when they wanted to attract attention. There are different equivalents today that need avoiding.

You weren't supposed to "make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you", because this was again something that pagans did back then, and your body was God's, not your own to mutilate. I personally believe that this one still applies today, aside from perhaps markings to show your affiliation (armed forces tattoos), but I wouldn't go to the extent of pushing that viewpoint on others. It's a personal choice.

As for the rest of your post, I honestly found it more than a little disturbing. It's possible to find hidden sexual connotations in almost anything if you view things with a Freudian frame of mind, but Freud was more than a bit off his rocker imho, and there's a big difference between manly love for your best buddy (sometimes stronger than even that for your wife, in the case of warriors), and sexual attraction. David's problems were entirely heterosexual (Bathsheba), not homosexual.

Theodore wrote:As for the rest of your post, I honestly found it more than a little disturbing. It's possible to find hidden sexual connotations in almost anything if you view things with a Freudian frame of mind, but Freud was more than a bit off his rocker imho, and there's a big difference between manly love for your best buddy (sometimes stronger than even that for your wife, in the case of warriors), and sexual attraction. David's problems were entirely heterosexual (Bathsheba), not homosexual.

Would you strip naked in front of your friend? Why not? It was just as unusual and strange then in a friend relationship as it would be now. If they were at the bathhouse, yes, but they were not. It would have been very suspect had they not been in a relationship higher than friendship.

It isn't me finding hidden sexual connotations - it is verses being rewritten because the idea of a homosexual relationship repulsed those who were translating. What man does not understand, he fears. The words to describe the love between the two men were all meant 'physical love' or 'family love' - not friendship. Just as the words 'love' between Peter and Christ were changed, so was this. (between a strong brotherly love and a loose friend, not implying a homosexual relationship between Christ and Peter). The men would not have kissed and David been accepted as a member of the family. 18:21 had the original state that he would be a son-in-law, of the twain, yet the verse was rewritten to be one of the twain. Had David married one of the daughters, as Saul offered, and was already bound to Jonathan, "of the twain" makes sense. By rewriting it, the verse changes meaning to saying he's picking one of two.
David didn't marry one of the daughters, yet described his relationship with Jonathan more wonderful than that of a woman. If love is the highest form of relationships, and platonic relationships between men and women were discouraged, David is saying that his relationship with Jonathan is above a love for a woman.

You can say it is disturbing, but I find the fact that the verses were not left intact even more disturbing and suspect.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

momo3boys wrote:I thoroughly agree with you about salvation, however, how can you teach your children that Jesus died for them, to believe the gospel, but the rest of the bible isn't true?

My trouble here is with what's considered 'true'. Does something have to be historical fact to be truth? Do I have to believe that the flood was a historical event to understand the significance of what the story is trying to communicate?

Where do you draw the line? I've asked this question of someone before and no one ever answers. I'm not trying to be controversial, (on this issue ) but trying to get a real answer.

I don't draw a line, I simply approach the bible (New Testament included) with a different view. I don't see it as needing to be literally inerrant in order for my faith to be justified and so I'm free to use textual and historical criticism to evaluate the bible.

Personally I believe that while the pen may have been held by a man, that the words were inspired by God, there are too many statistics for that not to be true.

here are a couple of many sotes that prove the authorship is God. Many people, scientists and aetheists, seek out to prove that the bible is a lie, yet they find out the truth, that it is written by God. "case for Christ" is the story of one.

I didn't find the sites compelling. Many of the claims are very vague (there are lots of starts in the sky and the bible says that and so genesis must be fact!), others ignore or distort the centuries of work done by textual critics and the second one in particular contained outright lies. The only way these sites could hold water is if the people that read them never explore their claims.

I guess I reject the dynamic that fears that if the bible isn't historical fact then it's a lie. It's myth, legend, liturgy, sermon, poetry and sometimes history. All of those literary form can communicate truth.

knobren wrote: Personally, I would find it more emotionally damaging to carry a child to term and then give her/him up for adoption, never knowing what had become of her/him.

And you wouldn't find it emotionally damaging to wonder what the child could've been if he/she had not been extinguished?

I happen to have a friend who was conceived as a result of rape. She is very thankful that her biological mother chose to let her live and give her up for adoption. Her 3 children, husband and everyone who has been blessed to know her are thankful, as well. I'm sure it was a painful decision but a very honorable and selfless one.

I have another friend who chose to abort a child. She is plagued with nightmares. She still keeps track of his/her age. She still contemplates what this child might have contributed to the world.

The first woman goes to bed at night knowing that she gave a defenseless child the chance she deserved. The second suffers beyond comfort.

WishboneDawn wrote:I didn't find the sites compelling. Many of the claims are very vague (there are lots of starts in the sky and the bible says that and so genesis must be fact!), others ignore or distort the centuries of work done by textual critics and the second one in particular contained outright lies. The only way these sites could hold water is if the people that read them never explore their claims.

I guess I reject the dynamic that fears that if the bible isn't historical fact then it's a lie. It's myth, legend, liturgy, sermon, poetry and sometimes history. All of those literary form can communicate truth.

What about the prophecies, and the fact that so many copies have been found and verified? Also, what about all the archaeological evidence of town that are in the bible? I keep hearing on science channels about how there were a lot of little floods all over the world, at approximately the same time, why don't they call it a world wide flood? TO me it's all or nothing. Jesus Quoted the Old Testament all the time, as truth, I refuse to call Him a liar.

Lily wrote:The bible is a collection of stories, poems, and letters that were selected by a committee. To take it as complete fact is in error - the subtleties of the translations change it from its original text, and as a committee decided what went in and what stayed out, it is impossible to know if the books were chosen/rewritten based on what they wanted to believe and what was in the books they left out. That, and the context of the writings has to be taken into account - what was true then is not always true now, and we may have litte to no knowledge of what the writers' lives were like, nor their sentiments at the time.

I prefer to take one thing from the bible - Matthew 7:12. To me, this sums up Jesus' teachings and the rest is just surrounding.

In reference to the last comment, how can you take that, and not John 14:6. That does sound figurative to me. "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except by me." TO me that says that to get to the place He is preparing for us, (a few verses before) we have to believe in Jesus, not Buddha, or Mohamed, but only Jesus.

This is about translations. If anyone thinks that the Jews who wrote the manuscripts made a mistake then you don't know much about Jewish culture. They would tip out the page that had a mistake on it, like to words touching each other, and then they would rip out the one that was touching it too for good measure! I think we can trust the scribes on this one.

I also wanted to know what you think about all the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, and the proof that they were written hundreds of years before Jesus was born and the New Testament was written.